Added requesttype request statistics

[rlin1214]

Description

This change adds per-request-type statistics to RequestScheduler using the existing RequestType enum.

Previously, RequestType values were assigned to requests and propagated through the request pipeline, but they were not used for debugging, logging, or statistics collection. This change tracks the number of requests by type and reports them through the existing debugShowStatistics mechanism.

The following request categories are tracked:

-Terrain requests
-Imagery requests
-3D Tiles requests
-Other requests

These statistics can help developers better understand request distribution and provide more fine-grained debugging information when analyzing application behavior.

Issue number and link

fixes issue #13048

Testing plan

-Added request-type counters to the RequestScheduler statistics object.
-Incremented counters when requests are processed by RequestScheduler.request.
-Added logging of request-type statistics when RequestScheduler.debugShowStatistics is enabled.
-Reset counters after logging to match the behavior of existing statistics.
-Started the Cesium development server and opened Sandcastle.
-Enabled statistics reporting and verified that imagery, terrain, 3D Tiles, and other request counts were logged correctly.
-Verified that counters reset after reporting and did not accumulate indefinitely.

Author checklist

• I have submitted a Contributor License Agreement
• I have added my name to CONTRIBUTORS.md
• I have updated CHANGES.md with a short summary of my change
• I have added or updated unit tests to ensure consistent code coverage
• I have updated the inline documentation, and included code examples where relevant
• I have performed a self-review of my code

AI acknowledgment

• I used AI to generate content in this PR
• If yes, I have reviewed the AI-generated content before submitting

If yes, I used the following Tools(s) and/or Service(s):

ChatGPT

If yes, I used the following Model(s):

GPT-5.5

[github-actions]

Thank you for the pull request, @rlin1214! Welcome to the Cesium community!

In order for us to review your PR, please complete the following steps:

• Send in a Contributor License Agreement (CLA)
• Add yourself to the contributors file

Review Pull Request Guidelines to make sure your PR gets accepted quickly.

[rlin1214]

I have completed these steps,

• I have submitted a Contributor License Agreement
• I have added my name to CONTRIBUTORS.md
• I have updated CHANGES.md with a short summary of my change

[ggetz]

I can confirm we now have a CLA on file for @rlin1214!

[javagl]

The issue originally suggested removing the RequestType, because it was not used. This change goes beyond that: It changes the implementation so that the RequestType is in fact used.

But as also mentioned in the issue: I could imagine that this could be useful for tracking more fine-grained information. And this seems to be well aligned with efforts that are related to ~"better benchmarking and performance tests". (Roughly: When we find out that too much time is spent with too many requests, it could be helpful to know which types of requests that are).

So I'd lean towards merging this, ... @ggetz ... unless you disagree.

(Until now, I only skimmed over the code, and it looks straightforward - if this is something that we'd like to have, I'd do a proper review+test tomorrow)

[ggetz]

I agree that this change, while different than the original suggestion, is overall a helpful one.

As an aside, I wonder if the intention of the RequestScheduler was, at one point or in the future, intended to have budgets for different types of requests like what is implemented in JobScheduler. I could see that proving useful for preventing one type of request from starving another, such as reported in #4166. This is all beyond the scope of this PR, however.

[ggetz]

Overall, the code updates here look clean. 👍

@rlin1214 There are a few cleanup tasks needed before this can be merged. Could you please:

• Write one or more unit tests in RequestSchedulerSpec to confirm the new debug behavior
• Merge in main
• Move the bullet in CHANGES.md to the next scheduled release, 1.144

[rlin1214]

Noted, thank you so so much!!

…

On Mon, Jul 6, 2026 at 2:50 PM Gabby Getz ***@***.***> wrote: ***@***.**** requested changes on this pull request. Overall, the code updates here look clean. 👍 @rlin1214 <https://github.com/rlin1214> There are a few cleanup tasks needed before this can be merged. Could you please: - Write one or more unit tests in RequestSchedulerSpec to confirm the new debug behavior - Merge in main - Move the bullet in CHANGES.md to the next scheduled release, 1.144 — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#13571?email_source=notifications&email_token=AKQO2WZXHKWNFPWHLNBKHIT5DPYHLA5CNFSNUABKM5UWIORPF5TWS5BNNB2WEL2QOVWGYUTFOF2WK43UKJSXM2LFO4XTINRTHA4DKMJTGQ4KM4TFMFZW63VHNVSW45DJN5XKKZLWMVXHJLDGN5XXIZLSL5RWY2LDNM#pullrequestreview-4638851348>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKQO2W4XELMEDGEBWBQ3OKT5DPYHLAVCNFSNUABDKJSXA33TNF2G64TZHMZTMMBWG4ZTQO2JONZXKZJ3GQ3DMOJUGQ3TGNRVUF3AE> . Triage notifications, keep track of coding agent tasks and review pull requests on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS <https://github.com/notifications/mobile/ios/AKQO2W6CYIQXLSCUTKYUPCL5DPYHLA5CNFSNUABKM5UWIORPF5TWS5BNNB2WEL2QOVWGYUTFOF2WK43UKJSXM2LFO4XTINRTHA4DKMJTGQ4KM4TFMFZW63VHNVSW45DJN5XKKZLWMVXHJKTGN5XXIZLSL5UW64Y> and Android <https://github.com/notifications/mobile/android/AKQO2W6EMGGZHX2B6BAGZVD5DPYHLA5CNFSNUABKM5UWIORPF5TWS5BNNB2WEL2QOVWGYUTFOF2WK43UKJSXM2LFO4XTINRTHA4DKMJTGQ4KM4TFMFZW63VHNVSW45DJN5XKKZLWMVXHJLTGN5XXIZLSL5QW4ZDSN5UWI>. Download it today! You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>